Protecting Public Figures Online: How Do Platforms and Regulators Define Public Figures?

IF 1.5 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Media International Australia Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1177/1329878x231225745
Rob Cover, Nicola Henry, Joscelyn Gleave, Sharon Greenfield, Viktor Grechyn, Thuc Bao Huynh
{"title":"Protecting Public Figures Online: How Do Platforms and Regulators Define Public Figures?","authors":"Rob Cover, Nicola Henry, Joscelyn Gleave, Sharon Greenfield, Viktor Grechyn, Thuc Bao Huynh","doi":"10.1177/1329878x231225745","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public figures are subject to higher rates of online abuse than other users in part because many digital platforms have significantly higher thresholds for intervening in cases of public figure abuse. Internationally, this higher rate of abuse has led to substantial impacts on public figures’ wellbeing and withdrawal from public life. This article presents findings from a study of platform policies to understand how platforms and policy stakeholders define public figures. Key findings included (a) public figures are ill-defined in platform policies, (b) policies often collapse distinctions between traditional public figures such as politicians and entertainers, emerging public figures such as influencers, and involuntary public figures such as a celebrity's family members; and (c) policies fail to acknowledge the diverse resources and institutional support enjoyed by different types of public figure. The article draws on applied cultural theory to unpack the challenges and consequences of inadequately defining public figures.","PeriodicalId":46880,"journal":{"name":"Media International Australia","volume":"9 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media International Australia","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878x231225745","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public figures are subject to higher rates of online abuse than other users in part because many digital platforms have significantly higher thresholds for intervening in cases of public figure abuse. Internationally, this higher rate of abuse has led to substantial impacts on public figures’ wellbeing and withdrawal from public life. This article presents findings from a study of platform policies to understand how platforms and policy stakeholders define public figures. Key findings included (a) public figures are ill-defined in platform policies, (b) policies often collapse distinctions between traditional public figures such as politicians and entertainers, emerging public figures such as influencers, and involuntary public figures such as a celebrity's family members; and (c) policies fail to acknowledge the diverse resources and institutional support enjoyed by different types of public figure. The article draws on applied cultural theory to unpack the challenges and consequences of inadequately defining public figures.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护网络公众人物:平台和监管机构如何定义公众人物?
与其他用户相比,公众人物遭受网络侵权的比例更高,部分原因是许多数字平台对公众人物侵权案件的干预门槛要高得多。在国际上,这种较高的滥用率已导致公众人物的福祉受到严重影响,并退出公共生活。本文介绍了对平台政策的研究结果,以了解平台和政策利益相关者如何定义公众人物。主要发现包括:(a) 平台政策中对公众人物的定义不明确;(b) 政策往往无法区分传统公众人物(如政治家和艺人)、新兴公众人物(如影响力人物)和非自愿公众人物(如名人的家庭成员);(c) 政策未能承认不同类型的公众人物享有不同的资源和制度支持。文章借鉴应用文化理论,阐述了公众人物定义不当所带来的挑战和后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
66
期刊最新文献
AANZCA2023 Conference Special Issue: Introduction Digital Racism and Antiracism Toward Asian and Muslim Communities During the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Australian Experience Wellness communities and vaccine hesitancy Making public or quiet listening? Media logics and public inquiries into the abuse of children Exploring a post-truth referendum: Australia's Voice to Parliament and the management of attention on social media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1